Petitioner, accused in Sections 307/34 IPC and Arms Act offence, sought bail. Court found petitioner not an assailant, only seen near occurrence, and in custody since Nov 15, 2015. Bail granted with bond.
Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount to Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3848 of 2016
Paras Nath Sahu son of Sadhu Sahu, resident of Pundag, Dipatoli, P.O. & P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi. …......... Petitioner. Versus
The State of Jharkhand . ... … Opp. Party.
------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN. -----For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
04/12.08.2016: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 376 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 6667 of 2015, for the offence under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other four persons after hatching conspiracy has fired upon the son of the informant. She further submits, that it is also alleged in the FIR that there was a land dispute between the petitioner and his brother, who happens to be father of the victim. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no evidence against the petitioner and in fact, there is a long standing enmity between the parties, as a result of which, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that in the case diary, it has come that the petitioner was seen near the place of occurrence. He further submits that the involvement of the petitioner in hatching conspiracy, cannot be ruled out.
Since the petitioner admittedly is not an assailant and the only allegation against him is that he was seen near the place of occurrence and also in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 15.11.2015, I feel inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 376 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 6667 of 2015.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
Anu/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail given he is not an assailant and only alleged to have been seen near the place of occurrence.
Paras Nath Sahu
The State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
